Mintz, et al v. Dietz and Watson Inc, et al

Case Number: 3:2005cv01470
Filed: July 22, 2005
Court: California Southern District Court
Office: San Diego Office
Referring Judge: Cathy Ann Bencivengo
Presiding Judge: M. James Lorenz
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
November 9, 2010 243 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 229 Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 11/9/10. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lao)
March 30, 2010 227 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Granting 182 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Invalidity; Denying 178 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Validity; Granting Defendant's Motion Re: Noninfringement and Denying 180 Plaintiffs' Motion Re: Infringement; and Directing Entry of Judgment: The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 3/30/2010. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mjj)
July 9, 2009 176 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Granting 170 Motion to Strike Expert and Expert Report: The motion to exclude Mr. Mintz as an expert and his expert report because he was not timely identified as an expert is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 7/9/2009. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(mjj) (jrl).
June 29, 2009 169 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Granting 141 Motion to Amend Final Invalidity Contentions: Defendants shall file their amended final invalidity contentions within five days of the filing of this Order. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 6/29/2009. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(mjj) (jrl).
June 3, 2009 160 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Denying 156 Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Designation of Arnold Mikelbert: Defendants are permitted until July 10, 2009 to identify an expert and provide a rebuttal report to Mr. Mikelbergs report. This extension applies only to t he designation of Mr. Mikelberg and his opinions. All other rebuttal reports on infringement and invalidity remain due no later than June 19, 2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 6/3/2009. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(mjj) (jrl).
May 27, 2009 155 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Regarding 144 Plaintiff's Discovery Motion; and Order Granting 150 Defendants' Ex Parte Motion to Continue Dates: On May 22, 2009, the Court held a telephonic conference on Plaintiff Jif-Paks Discovery Motion [Doc. No. 144.] The S cheduling Order is modified as set forth in the Order. A telephonic Status Conference is set for 6/12/2009 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo. Plaintiff may file a motion to seek sanctions related to four subpoenas issued by PCM in late April 2009. Any other request for sanctions in connection with plaintiffs motion is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 5/27/2009. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(mjj) (jrl).
February 13, 2009 134 Opinion or Order of the Court Claim Construction ORDER. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 2/13/2009. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(mjj)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Mintz, et al v. Dietz and Watson Inc, et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?